Your message has been sent.

"It wasn't me who said we were created in Gods image, it was God." --- Technically no, it was a handful of ancient storytellers claiming to speak for God & you bought into it. Unless you've been holding out on us & He is now speaking to you directly? Hearing any voices in your head lately that are not you? 8^O

"I don't see where this puts restraints on God, more likely you don't understand the meaning." --- Have you ever seen the Jerry Springer Show James? No wonder your God is too embarrassed to show Himself. ;-)

"If you do not find my links helpful, take it up with God..." --- He never returns my calls.

"...but leave out the .jpg link, I'm pretty sure God would not be amused." --- Something tells me He's not paying attention James. You'd think after what He did to Job, His most faithful one, He'd be all over me going on & on about His unfathomable grandiosity & my insignificance in comparison, but apparently He's just not that interested. Oh well.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

“No, you can always choose to go against The Way, but once you "get" it, why would you? Once one gains wisdom why would they return to ignorance? ;-)”

Laozi describes WeiWuWei as action that is purposeless and does not require action; an action that occurs naturally. As such, we are to be like the rock that rolls down a hill or the sprout which grows without doing anything. The sage simply acts according to his nature and the act of choosing would itself seem to be in opposition to the Way. Choosing implies that a value system exists that can differentiate between choices and the Way is only clear when you embrace no ideology.

“Settle the mind, stop thinking & differentiating thru which all conflict & delusions arise, simply observe everything just as it is, once the mind is settled, calm & equanimous you cannot help but start seeing the world much more clearly. Our greatest hindrance is our erratic, undisciplined, unmoderated & unexamined minds.”

[The practice of non-meditation is ceasing to be the see-er, hearer or speaker while eyes, ears and mouths are fulfilling their function in daily life.]

Your eyes see but you do not see, your ears hear but you do not hear, your mouth speaks but you do not speak. In short, your mind is detached from your body. I have a hard enough time just meditating quietly. =)

To illustrate the difficulty in actually qualifying to receive the Way, let’s look at what’s needed.

[Wisdom is the understanding that knowledge is useless.The failure to understand that knowledge is useless is sickness]

You must first discard your knowledge of everything concrete: terminology, conception, even logic itself. Then you must empty your mind of all desire, even your desire to understand the Way. However, if you desire the state of no desire, that creates another desire. Confusing? How about:

[The man with correct vision first makes all being empty; thus there is no clinging to being. Then he eliminates the clinging; to the concept of emptiness ... Then he who practices like this does not cling to emptiness or being. This is called xuan, the mysterious. Then he eliminates this xuan, and nothing that could be obtained remains. This is called chongxuan, the gate of all mysteries.]

Okay, so you need to stop clinging to existence, then stop clinging to non-existence, then stop clinging to non-non-existence. So the mystery removes your attachment to detachment, then another mystery removes your attachment to the mystery, so what removes your attachment to that mystery? No wonder you were asked to shed your knowledge and logic first.

“never mistake the principles, concepts, methods, practices, etc..., as The Way itself”

Exactly. No one can teach the Way, every single person must reach harmony with the Way themselves. Fat chance of that, so the Daoists came up with a set of RenDao approximating the Way that could actually be understood.

I actually find Daoism to be quite interesting, but the entire thought process is so counter-intuitive you can't reconcile it with empirical experience. Thus you either have to reject empirical experience as being reality, which Laozi recommends, or you have to reject Daoism.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Thomas Herndon, Michael Ash and Robert Pollin examine Reinhart and Rogoff’s research on the relationship between public debt and GDP growth for advanced economies in the post World War II period. Reinhart and Rogoff argue that the rate of economic growth for these countries has consistently declined precipitously once the level of government debt exceeds 90 percent of the country’s GDP. In recent years, Reinhart and Rogoff’s results have been highly influential as support for austerity policies in both Europe and the United States.

Herndon, Ash and Pollin find that a series of data errors and unsupportable statistical techniques led to an inaccurate representation of the actual relationship between public debt levels and GDP growth. They find that when properly calculated, average GDP growth for advanced economies at public debt-to-GDP ratios over 90 percent is not dramatically different than when debt-to-GDP ratios are lower.

But as usual, Colbert has the most amusing take, including an interview with the grad student who found the flaws in the austerity arguement. You can see it at: http://www.colbertnation.com/ under the rather illustrative title: Austerity's Spreadsheet Error - Thomas Herndon.

This is kind of like someone finding a simple arithmetic error in Einstein's Relativity equations. A colossal "oops" that has added a lot of misery to Europe and has found a voice in some - shall we say - less scrupulous quarters in the USA. I am dying to see wonder-boy Paul Ryan squirm out of this one. But Xavier, feel free to do your voodoo you do so well.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Peter, I'll read the article but for the record, while it wouldn't surprise me that there is a statistical error somewhere, I've been embarrased by that myself, for the relationship you provided--growth versus level of national indebtedness--I've seen plots of the historical data and you don't need statistical analysis to see, visibly to the eye, the drop off in growth rates above around the 90% level of debt to GDP.

Moreover, the policies being followed in Europe are not a result of Reinhart and Rogoff, they are the result of 25 years of on-the-ground experience and endless analysis of some 125 crises during that period. For ten years my group sponsored many of those anslyses and extended workshops, up to nine days behind closed doors, for ministers of finance, governors of central banks, and many senior bankers, many of them PhD economists from the top schools. The Europeans took the lessons to heart, as did all emerging economies except Argentina after about 2000, but not the US despite the fact that at least three of the most senior US officials, Summers, Geithner and Stiglitz, were privy and to an extent participated in all of that work.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Well, there are people who will beg to differ. There is no magical number that I can find anywhere that is supported by data, and the Europeans are starting to back off the austerity bandwagon. Austerity makes sense when the economy is roaring. Otherwise, it just puts a damper on things. It just ain't that complicated.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

You have, on the other hand, a penchant for over-thinking a problem and dwelling on its complexity. I understand multi-variant analysis as much as the next guy, but there are ways to look at the big picture without resorting to minutia. Of course, economies are huge complex organisms but there are ways to talk about complex organisms in broad strokes.

Our bodies are extremely complex, for example, but it is possible to convey a simple proposition like, the patient has pancreatic cancer and has three months to live without going into all the gory details. I don't know about you, but if I find myself in that position I would prefer the short and sweet version minus all the scientific complexity. Call me simplistic, but I would prefer it that way.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Everything in your laundry list of government "must spends" could be done cheaper and better with private oversight.

And your FBI example with regard to the tsarnev's was especially titillating, especially given the fact that if the FBI had done its job without the influences of a particular government party (which shall remain blameless, I'm sure) Terrorist Number One would have been caught trying to re-enter the country and sent back home due to his radical Islamist leanings.

Put private sector companies in charge of border security and then our children and grandchildren would have the opportunity to watch such problems fade into a bygone era marked by one progressive miscalculation after another.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

The problem is not with the borrowing, but with the inherent unfairness and redistributive nature of the borrowing.

It's easy for economists who depend on government spending on higher education to promote ever-increasing government borrowing.

The problem is that every dollar borrowed is a dollar taken out of the paycheck of a taxpayer and moved over to someone else, most generally, a government employee or crony capitalist that could not produce that dollar him/herself without the government stepping in and making it all possible.

What's wrong with the notion that the government should not be performing such large scale re-distribution? Why can't we agree to support a system where private individuals, by themselves, or working together under eyes-wide-open legal contracts with others, make these decision.

Leave the confiscatory taxation and involuntary coercion out of the equation.

The first 140 years or so of our country were accomplished under this free-market model. Only after New Deal economics came along did things begin to get so unbalanced that it is now necessary that we discuss this issue of national debt rising to insane levels.

When the income tax was first implemented in the 1920s the rate of taxation was 1% for the average Joe and 3% for the highest earners. How far we have drifted! Combined rates in many states now approach 50%. We are on the wrong track Peter, but we can't seem to convince folks who benefit directly from the system and are finding ever more clever ways to keep it humming along.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

"The problem is that every dollar borrowed is a dollar taken out of the paycheck of a taxpayer and moved over to someone else, most generally, a government employee or crony capitalist that could not produce that dollar him/herself without the government stepping in and making it all possible"

First, the world would grind to a halt if there were no borrowing. There simply is not enough equity to service the needs of investors including the government investor. Governments invest in all sorts of things. For instance , the Tsarnevs Brothers may have escaped had it not been for the combined efforts of the FBI and various state and local governments, A safe society fosters economic activity, wouldn't you say.

And then there all that road and bridge repairs that the feds pay for. And this is not nearly enough as our infrastructure needs more than spit and glue repair. Then there are investments in science that no one else would make, the internet, and generallly a structure we call the rule of law that allows other economic activities to go on.

Care for th old and for those that have suffered misfortune allows even those folks to create economic activity that brings dollars back to the government ostiensibly to pay the debt back. The multiplier effect of government spending , whatever it may be, pretty much gurarntees that your statement that government spending is robbing Peter to pay Pual is wrong. What is certain is that we would not have a 13 trillion dollar economy without it. Now there is something you can say with rock solid certainty.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Keith,Greg is always one to deride the religious for "magical" thinking, but never even considers that he himself might engage in that same behavior. To Greg what he accepts is reality, what the religious accept is "magical" thinking.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I am just raising the issue. I expect you to draw your own conclusions. My intent is to lead you to as many facts as possible and hopefully people will not not base conclusions on pre-existing premises. Even though Colbert draws the comedy out as much as possible, he talks to a a scientist who having thought one way allowed the facts to dictate his conclusions. If you allow it, the facts, if not overly colored will lead you to conclusions that can be supported by evidence. There is precious little of that going on hear lately.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

In your simplicity I believed you've overlooked the main problem in Europe--its monetary union. Borrowing is great as long as you have a way to pay it back. The US has more flexibility in this since it is a currency issuer. But what about poor Greece? They cannot manipulate their currency since it's controlled by the ECB. They can collect taxes and issue bonds, but what happens when they can no longer sell bonds because of their inability to meet their obligations and rates rise?

By combining Europe with the US saying "austerity is bad" shows me that, like so many others, you fail to take into account the vast differences in the monetary systems. President Obama is pushing tax hikes--that's a form of austerity. He's taking money from the private sector to feed the public sector. It has the same result as cutting spending. Are you upset with him?

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I am upset with Obama, but not for things he is not doing. I am upset about things he is doing, like not curtailing the drone program. He is responsible for that and we have the right to question that program. However, he is not 'redistributing' wealth. I know, it sounds good to talk about it but it is fiction, so I don't deal with fiction.

If you wish to discuss what government's proper role in society is, that is a good topic. If you wish to posit what the limits of government should be, that's a good topic. But don't count on me to participate in discussions about fictitious matters. You can't possibly say with a straight face that someone with a salary of $31 million experiencing a 2% tax hike is "austerity".

George W ran two wars without paying for them and lowered taxes on top of that. That is not conservative. That is irresponsible. And Obama has had to pay for all that, and guess what? We all have to chip in. If that is what you mean by "taking money from the private sector to feed the public sector" then that's what the responsible thing to do is. I don't like it either, but then again, I didn't support the Iraq incursion, either, way before it became fashionable to be against it. I was against the Iraq war when Scott Ritter told us six months before the invasion that Saddam had no WMD. He really sounded like he knew what he was talking about. So now we have to pay the piper. You can call it austerity. I call it paying our bills.

As for Europe, they are indeed somewhat different that us. But not that different. That will be for another discussion.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I'm talking about macroeconomics. Spending cuts by the government and tax increases on the people take money out of the private sector. That slows the economy. Increased spending by the government and tax cuts spur the economy. You criticize Bush for cutting taxes, but praise Democrats for increased government spending, but both have a similar affect. The difference is not economic, but political.

In the EU they have a monetary union similar to the states of this country, but instead of uniting states that are willing to share with each other, Europe is uniting countries that don't always get along in a system that doesn't have a way of redistributing wealth from Germany to Greece--producers to consumers. The countries that are a part of the EU cannot print, or otherwise manipulate their own money. So when they spend more than they produce, they have no way to ease the pain if the central bank doesn't help them out. At this point, unlike the US, the EU has a flawed monetary system. So you can't compare the two. It would be better to compare the US with Japan which is also a currency issuer.

So you want to talk politics rather than economics. And the bottom line is to bash Bush and all things Republican, while praising all things Democrat. Yea, I got it. Macroeconomics is more interesting to me.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Correction, Nancy. I criticized Bush for being irresponsible, by cutting taxes while massively increasing spending. That is not politics. That is economics. As Bush's father stated earlier about Reagan, it was "Voodoo Economics," which can be applied to George jr. as well.

It is you who are engaged in politics by ignoring the massive spending George W made and pretending that all the spending is Obama's. Any objective reading of the situation will tell you that although Obama is guilty of some increase in spending (the stimulus program), it was George W who was much more profligate in the spending department and left us with this massive debt and an economy that was hemorrhaging 750,000 jobs a month!

And until you stop with the "Republicans cut taxes and Democrats spend money" mantra, it is you (and your sidekick Xavier) who are engaged in politics, and not economics. I am more interested in macroeconomics, but you cannot drop the political talk for even one minute. The last time I accused Xavier of being political he told me to crawl back into my cave. Very mature. He does that when he gets caught being political.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

You oppose austerity! Do you understand what that means? It means you favor increased government debt to spur economic growth. President Bush came into office at a time the economy was slowing, and shortly after he faced 9/11. He cut taxes and his deficits were in line with other presidents. Look it up. His actions kept our economy going through increased debt after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That's what you're advocating when you criticize those who call for less deficit spending (austerity).

That's the irony and hypocrisy from the Democrats. They rail against Bush for increasing government debt while they call for increased government debt to spur economic growth under Obama. Apparently debt is bad under Republicans, but good under Democrats. It's Voodoo economics under Republicans and Keynesian economics under Obama. What a joke.

Here are the numbers, and yes, they include the spending on Iraq and Afghanistan which were funded through emergency supplementals:

"President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016."

If you don't understand the similar effects on the economy from tax cuts and increased spending, versus tax increases and spending cuts, then I suggest you take an economics course. I don't think you understand what your criticizing in your original post. It's just your latest political talking points from the Democrat Party.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Nancy, much as you enjoy the politics of debt, I don't. There is debt and there is debt. I think you might agree, that at a household level, there is a world of difference between buying a home (incurring debt) and living a reckless lifestyle by overindulging (heavy drinking, taking on multiple mistresses, going to expensive restaurants, etc.) They both can produce a lot of debt but certainly, buying a home is the more responsible (and reasonable) course of action for a myriad of reasons which I think are pretty obvious.

The same is true about government debt. There is a world of difference between President Eisenhower spending a ton of cash building our interstate highway system and starting NASA then spending a ton of cash invading a country that didn't need invading. In Eisenhower's case, his expenditures led to economic growth, greater employment, and huge increases in productivity and massive innovation. In George W.'s case, it led to a deeper recession, massive unemployment, and bigger deficits. So not all government expenditure is equal.

As for the now debunked theory that countries should not carry more than 90% of debt to GDP, using a domestic example is also illustrative. This is like saying that people should not carry more than 90% debt based on their yearly earnings. This means if a household is making $100,000 per year (a reasonably comfortable amount) they should not carry more than $90,000 in debt.

Let's see how this works out. Let's say they purchase two cars because they both work and borrow $20K for one car and borrow $15K for the second car. They also carry about $5K in total credit card debt, that would mean they would have only $50K to spend on a home. Maybe in your neck of the woods you can get a decent home for that kind of money, but where I live that won't even buy you a decent trailer in a trailer park. In Rhode Island, a decent trailer home will fetch around $100K. So based on this theory, a couple making $100K should content themselves with a junk $50K trailer home if they live in Rhode Island. I live in a modest Cape Cod home in a decent neighborhood which is valued at $350K but according to the 90% rule I should be in over my head and broke. Well, I'm not. And we have a very decent retirement portfolio and our home is paid in full.

Now I know I will be accused of being utterly simplistic, and political, and yada yada yada. But the geniuses Xavier alluded to earlier came up with all this complicated theory that in the end proved to be wrong. Their definition of the proper debt to GDP ratio was not really very useful after all.

Sometimes the simple common sense wisdom of the less complicated folks prove to be better models than all the highfalutin types who keep giving us more and more misery.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I fear you don't understand the subject you started--austerity vs stimulus. You came down on the side of stimulus--Keynesian economics. That has a meaning which you don't seem to want to embrace.

The US government is the issuer of currency that everyone else, including the states, use. You cannot compare that to a household or a state which must live within its means and cannot print its own money. The point of stimulus by the government, which means an increase in spending by the government and thereby increased debt, is to offset the lack of spending by the private sector in times of recession and hopefully keep the economy from falling into deflation. President Eisenhower enlisted the states to build an interstate highway so that American troops could be more easily moved from one end of the country to the other during times of war. Keynes' example of stimulus, and even Krugman with his alien invasion scenario, used the example of war and wartime spending as a stimulus for economic growth. So you're way off on that.

The reason the US government is not constrained by debt is because it can print its own money if it needed to guaranteeing the payback of its debt. What restrains the government from over printing is inflation. The reason all this government spending has not gotten the economy back on track is because in normal times private sector spending accounts for 70% of GDP. Government can't make those numbers, it can only keep us muddling along until the private sector begins to borrow and spend once again and the velocity of money through the economy picks up.

I'm afraid your simple wisdom on this is no more than ignorance on the subject. The reality is that economics is vastly more complex than any mind can comprehend because so much depends on human choices and reactions which are difficult to predict.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Nancy, is it possible for you to make a cogent argument without calling the person you are discussing something with, "ignorant"? That in itself tells me that your argument is not so solid. When you resort to that kind of tactic you are telegraphing weakness.

A good argument speaks for itself. No need to tell the other person he or she is a bozo.

And yes, I understand rudimentary economics. You see, I didn't posit the argument as a stimulus vs. austerity argument. You did. I simply stated that the underpinnings of the current austerity-du-jour, if you will pardon my French, has been shown to be very flawed.

Your argument is quite perplexing in that you imply that Eisenhower was not doing anything Keynesian with his highway project because Keynes argued that government spending was tied to war (although some people would argue this narrow interpretation) and then you proceed to explain that President Eisenhower built the highway system "so that American troops could be more easily moved from one end of the country to the other during times of war." That sounds like a rather convoluted argument which is possibly why you chose to call me "ignorant."

And yes, I can compare Federal spending to a household because in my example, there was no need for the household to print money. And that was precisely the point. The household is capable of "living within its means" with a much higher than 90% debt to income ratio without going bankrupt, without a bailout, and without the need for printing money. I call it wise money management. In my personal case I have managed to live quite comfortably with a 700% debt to income ratio without any serious problems. There have been some refinancing of the mortgage along the way. There have been a few deferrals along the way, and there have been a few tense times between jobs, but all in all it has been fairly smooth sailing looking back.

I have to say that my Mom had on occasion given me some less than optimistic prognostications which turned out to be thankfully wrong. She was my personal 'Tea Party' type hand-wringer.

But in spite of all the current hand-wringing, the sky is not falling, (maybe gold values are a bit) Civilization as we know it is not crumbling, and although we experience all sorts of bad news on the domestic and foreign front, things are not any worse than they have been at any other period in history. And that is the optimistic good news I have to tell you today.

You may call me naive, simplistic, ignorant, and any other epithet you may devise, but I chose to live in happy times, not in dismal times. In my view, the glass is indeed resplendently half full.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

"Obama now wants to increase taxes and take a larger % of GDP produced by the private sector to pay for government spending and debt. Taking more money out of the private sector will leave less money for spending and investing by the private sector, which is a drag on the economy."

Nancy,

Actuallly Obama wants to nudge back toward the rate of taxation that took place when Bush took over. You know the 18-20% rate that existed before all the tax cutting produced the deficits that now exist. You guys want to say that it is social and domestic programs that produced all the deficits. Well that is a fabrication. Social security has paid for itself and then some. The deficits were produced by tax cuts and fighting two expensive wars on credit cards.

And remember what you hate to remember. All the tax cutting has done is produced deficits and aggravated our income inequality numbers. The vast majority of Americans have stood still or actually regressed as taxes have been cut. And only the uber rich have benefited. I am a relatively high income person. Yet I am making roughly the same money that I made 5 years ago.What does that tell you. Am I just lazy?

You don't like Obama because of ideological reasons. When Bush was running deficits and fighting wars, that was just fine. But try to give a poor working stiff some health care or a child some breakfast or lunch, then all heII breaks loose. 14% of GDP is nearly an all time low for taxes percent of GDP in the modern era. It was higher under Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Bush, and Carter, etc. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205

The reason why the economy hasn't gotten back on track is because by some estimates Americans lost over $10 trillion in wealth in 2008 and the world lost $50 trillion. We are talking money that made people secure that they could borrow and spend and pay it back. Eliminating that much wealth in such a short period brutalized the psyche of Americans and indeed the world. Then governments in Europe thought that they could repeal the lessons of the Depression by employing austerity. Now a bad problem was made worse.

The U.S. to Obama's credit went half way. And our recovery has been halting but at least it is forward. European countries by and large went backwards. Those ideological eyeshades shown clear when you showed the tax percentage of GDP without comparing it to history. Your whole big , bad , tax and spend Obama goes away when you compare his numbers to even W's numbers. But you dare to lecture Peter on economics without first doing what economists always do. They compare.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

"In my personal case I have managed to live quite comfortably with a 700% debt to income ratio without any serious problems."

Peter,

You're comparing your debt to income, while the government comparison is debt to GDP--something very different from income. GDP is the market value of all the goods and services produced in this country in a given time period. It is NOT the government's income.

In 2010, the government collected in taxes about 14% of GDP which is $2.2 trillion. It spent $3.5 trillion with a deficit of over $1 trillion and a combined debt of $13 trillion. GDP in 2010 was about $14.5 trillion. So as you can see, US debt is nearly 90% of GDP, but it's at 590% of its yearly income.

Obama now wants to increase taxes and take a larger % of GDP produced by the private sector to pay for government spending and debt. Taking more money out of the private sector will leave less money for spending and investing by the private sector, which is a drag on the economy.

What you didn't volunteer is how much you have in assets and savings. That makes a difference when it comes to the ability to float debt. Your household situation is nothing like the US government. I hate to say the word ignorant, but...

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

You attribute to me a lot of things I've never said. Like Peter, you're talking politics rather than economics. I'm well aware that Obama's tax increases will take taxes to where they were before the Bush cut taxes. That doesn't change the fact of what I said, that tax increases will take money out of the private sector leaving less for spending and investment by the private sector which is a drag on the economy.

I'm also well aware that SS and medicare--payroll taxes--account for nearly half the revenues collected by the government, which are then turned around and spent on those programs, with any surplus held in US treasuries--which have done well recently.

But you make the same mistake Peter made. You applaud deficit spending as stimulus, except when it's done by Bush. Either you believe deficit spending is stimulus to the economy or you don't. You can't have it both ways or you look like a political hack. If all the Bush tax cuts did was produce deficits, why did Obama and the Democrats continue them after the economic downturn? Answer: Because tax cuts are stimulative to the private sector which boost economic growth.

Tax cuts are not the reason the economy has stagnated and the middle class is going nowhere. It's not the reason the rich are getting richer. You're probably making the same as ten years ago because people don't have the money to spend on the product you produce for more than they're paying now. With globalization, there are less jobs for American workers because of lower wages elsewhere. That leave more people who can do your job. Tax cuts leave more money in the private sector to be spent by people, which makes it easier to raise prices. But they can only go so far, as with government spending. Government spending also puts more money in the private sector, but only enough for people to spend on overseas products and those products produced by the rich. It's about sectoral balances and where the money flows and why.

The rich are richer because more of their money is in the stock market and bonds, while the middle class saw the price of their homes tumble.

Ideologically, I believe the role of the federal government is for fighting wars and providing for the safety of the people. I believe local government can do a better job of feeding local school children--as they've been doing for a long time--and providing for health care with a lot less waste than Washington.

I know Americans lost wealth when the housing bubble burst and the economy tumbled. Increasing taxes and taking even more money out of the private sector will slow the economy even more. If you believe Krugman, then you believe now is the time for government deficits, not tax increases and austerity. Tax increases and cuts in government spending are austere measures.

Again, we cannot compare ourselves to Europe because they have a flawed monetary system. Look at Japan. In times past when the economy was booming, taxes higher than 14% of GDP may have been warranted and even needed to cool the economy and lessen the treat of inflation. You have to account for the times we live in. As you noted, your salary has stagnated, Americans have lost wealth, the economy is limping along. Now is not the time for increased taxes which would take even more out of the private sector. You want me to compare today with different times. Comparing to different times is silly. We need to understand what's needed now.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

PeterYou say in your reply to Nancy,"Correction, Nancy. I criticized Bush for being irresponsible, by cutting taxes while massively increasing spending."Peter, ever read the Constitution?The President doesn't cut taxes or increase spending, that's the role of Congress, or more pointedly, the House of Representatives.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Peter says,"Austerity makes sense when the economy is roaring. Otherwise, it just puts a damper on things. It just ain't that complicated."So according to Peter it only makes sense to cut back when the economy is booming, and more government spending is the true answer to a lackluster economy.It seems Wikipedia does not understand austerity, perhaps they should have consulted Peter so as to avoid this error.From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIn economics, austerity describes policies used by governments to reduce budget deficits during adverse economic conditions. These policies can include spending cuts, tax increases, or a mixture of the two. Austerity policies demonstrate governments' liquidity to their creditors and credit rating agencies by bringing fiscal income closer to expenditure.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Peter says,"I am upset with Obama,... However, he is not 'redistributing' wealth. I know, it sounds good to talk about it but it is fiction, so I don't deal with fiction."So Peter does not deal with fiction. Does he deal with facts? Here are some, let's see if he deals with them.When President Bush took office in 2001, there were 17.3 million people on food stamps. During his last full year in office, 2008, there were 28.2 million on food stamps -- an increase of 10.9 million

But from the last full year of Bush’s presidency (2008) through 2011, just three years into President Obama’s presidency, the number of people on food stamps increased 16.5 million -- going from 28.2 million to 44.7 million -- an increase of 59 percent in just a 3-year period.

So Peter, these are facts. Where does the government get the money to feed 44.7 million people?They take it from my paycheck and redistribute it to others. But to you, that is not a redistribution of wealth.Peter, your logic is flawed.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

These facts are fine, but have little to do with "redistribution" of wealth, unless you think feeding hungry people is "redistribution". I call it being charitable since these folks are not getting rich at our expense. It would be nice if private charities could take care of this problem, but they just don't have enough resources.

And yes, it is a shame we have too many people who qualify for food assistance. In part, it is a persistent unemployment which is still too high, and in part it is low wages. Yes, there is a sizable number of people who qualify for food assistance who have jobs. It is really a shame, but true. But "redistribution?" Hardly. So when I give a dollar to a homeless person on the street I am "redistributing" wealth? I guess, technically that is true. But that hardly makes me a socialist.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

PeterI understand all of "technically correct". But I suggest you take care in how you speak to me lest you get my dander up, then you'll be crying to Zach again about what a meany I am.We wouldn't want you to quit this site for another 2 days, now would we?

Oh, and by the way, I'm not "technically correct", I'm correct, ergo, you are incorrect.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

So we have this group of Muslims that we’ll call “active haters” and terrorists. We then have a “larger silent majority” of Muslims who are either too afraid or simply unmotivated to shut down the first group. Now, since you combine both these groups into a “critical mass”, you seem to believe the second group has at least some level of culpability.

It’s hard to deny that people who blow up buildings and people while crying “Allahu Akbar!” are Muslim terrorists, killing in the name of their religion. I’d like to explore your thoughts about the second group, the “silent majority” that retains culpability through silence.

Here are my questions: How do you know they are silent? How many of the 1.6 billion Muslims of the world are among this “silent majority” (a majority, I would assume)? How can you tally those numbers confidently?

As you say, Bill Maher and Sam Harris agree that we have a problem when “religiously motivated violence emanates more from one faith than all the others.” Bill Maher and Sam Harris also attribute any historical violence done by Christians to Christianity, including (but definitely not limited to) the Crusades, slave trading, and the Spanish Inquisition. They use the same principle to make that assignment as they do to agree on the fact that the religion of Islam is singularly responsible for all this violence and death. If you don’t believe me, read “Letters to a Christian Nation” and/or watch “Religulous.” Are you sure you still want them as witnesses?

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Ruslan Tsarni has been hailed by pluralities of formerly silent Muslims for his open, candid and heartfelt response to his nephews' religiously inspired atrocities. He has become an Internet sensation. Astra Nomani, a Muslim journalist wrote in the Washington Post that .."the collectivist-minded Muslim community needs to learn an important lesson from Tsarni. It's time to acknowledge the dishonor of terrorism within our communities, not to deny it because of shame. As we negotiate critical issues of ethnicity, religious ideology and identity as potential motivators for conflict, we have to establish basic facts."

Zach, you seem to have a problem acknowledging simple realities without resorting to obfuscatory rhetoric and factual historical distortions irrelevant to the instant matter. Bill Maher and Sam Harris may believe in flying saucers. What does that have to do with the issue we are debating? Why go off on tangents that spring from my mentioning their names in connection with their stated position on Islam vis-a-vis "other religions?"

An acknowledgement of the reality that the Tsarnev brothers were led to murder innocent people at a marathon race, as Dzhokar has admitted, because of radical Islamist influences in no way signifies that I or anyone espousing a correct understanding of what happened in Boston is promoting Islamic hatred or practicing some form of Islamophobia. However, your bizarre observations about the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, etc., do bespeak a worrisome proclivity to gratuitously trash and bash Christianity any time you find an opportunity to do so. That is indeed a morbid sort of bias against the faith people in Boston--and everywhere a tragedy occurs--resort to for comfort, solace and healing.

Radical Islam, in law enforcement unvarnished shibboleth, is the common denominator of the overwhelming majority of terror attacks against innocents the world over. That is a fact. Spin it any way you choose. "Singularly responsible" is your characterization of the now indisputable role Islam played in the Boston bombings. "Singularly" is a "Zachism"-- an exaggeration inserted to fuel further discussion about how bad Christianity is...And yes, narrowly and limited to the their unbiased statements about Islam re the Boston bombings, Harris and Maher are witnesses against Islam--and you--in this matter.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

So we can agree that there appear to be—at the very least—“pluralities” of Muslims who aren’t culpable in the critical mass of Muslims who are responsible in some part for religiously-motivated violence around the world.

Now, you assert that “radical Islam, in law enforcement unvarnished shibboleth, is the common denominator of the overwhelming majority of terror attacks against innocents the world over.” I’m not aware of this shibboleth. Now, I’m willing to bet you have a lot more experience with domestic law enforcement, but I can tell you with a very high degree of confidence that most bombings of public areas in Iraq for the past decade have been related to tribal conflict, one crime ring attacking another, or both. There are at least three Military Police units and four Military Intelligence units in the Army that I can personally and without hesitation confirm do not, in fact, have that shibboleth.

May I ask to see the data that led you to conclude that law enforcement—all LEOs, the world over, right?—collectively agrees that most bombings and shootings on this planet occur because a Muslim intended to kill people in the name of his religion? Given the broad sweep of your claim, isn’t that a reasonable request?

I didn’t make a single statement regarding Christianity in my previous post, so I’m not sure where you got trashing, bashing, and obfuscations from; I simply offered you a wider scope of Maher and Harris’s views on religion. They use the same principle when approaching all religions, including Christianity: When a believer commits violence, the act is tallied under the religion. You don’t mind this principle when they apply it to Islam; do you take issue with the principle when applied to Christianity?

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

“Aren't we talking about good in reference to morality? Then in this discussion, good means moral; just.”

Well, I think the terms “good” and “moral” do encompass emotions like love and practices like mercy and compassion in this context. After all, is it not moral to be merciful? Would we ever call compassion anything but good?

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

You brought up Christianity when you referred to Sam Harris' attributions to Christianity of the Crusades and the Inquisition. What does that have to do with radical Islamic terrorism today, and how both atheists, Maher and Harris, portray it? Since the crusades and the Inquisition are ridiculous irrelavancies in the context of our discussion, it stands to reason that your bringing up this stuff is for the sole purpose of clouding the now incontrovertible connection between the Boston bombings and radical Islam.

From Cato Today: "Keeping the Tsarnevs in Perspective," Between September 12 2001 and April 15, 2013 some 52 cases came to light in which the U.S. itself has been, or apparently has been, targeted for terrorism by Islamist extremists here and abroad." Against this objective backdrop, law enforcement organizations involved in counter-terrorism the world over necessarily understand that terrorism is nigh synonymous with Islamic terrorism, although no one gainsays that other possibilities that are far less probable need to also be looked into ad hoc.

It is laughable to read how in your comments, you are far more interested in struggling to distort and obfuscate what is plainly written about an issue by an interlocutor than in making a sincere effort to grasp the meaning of what is being proffered. For instance, when I wrote that pluralities of formerly silent Muslims have embraced Ruslan Tsarni's courageous comments about the religious radicalization of his nephews, your deranged paraphrasing embarrassingly becomes "So we can agree that there appear to be -- at the very least -- 'pluralities' of Muslims who aren't culpable in the critical mass of Muslims who are responsible in some part for religiously motivate violence around the world." Do you need different bifocals to be able to read what others post, or is it just that it is in your DNA to lie about everything?

I said that whenever there is a perceived insult to the prophet and some radical religious fanatics engage in violent activities to avenge the perceived affront, most Muslims, through collective connivance and failure to decry the PAF (population Attributable Fraction) of their fellow followers of Islam who actually commit terrorism, de facto aid and abet terrorism. Period. What part of that did you not understand? I bet you everyone who read what we both wrote, like Xavier, for instance, sees right through your puerile dialectics--and laugh!

I'm glad you can identify three Military units in the Army that don't think radical Islam is our primary and sovereign terror threat. This simply means that they aren't competent to deal with Islamic terror--and should sign up for further training, or have you court-marshaled for portraying them as blatantly incompetent in this critical area.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

You keep referencing Sam Harris and Bill Maher as having sound opinions on Islam, so I wanted to make sure you understood where those opinions are coming from. Harris and Maher both approach all religions using one consistent principle, which I’ve described to you at length. Are you fine when they apply this principle to Islam, but take issue when they apply it to Christianity? You still owe me an answer to that question.

I think most people would agree that it’s no small matter for one man to speak for law enforcement agencies “the world over”—generally, such a broad statement begs a bit more evidence than your heartfelt and sincere reassurance. Is it really so unreasonable to request from you more data regarding the collective policy of LEOs across the globe, since you speak for them?

Okay, now I have something concrete from you: “[M]ost Muslims, through collective connivance and failure to decry the PAF (population Attributable Fraction) of their fellow followers of Islam who actually commit terrorism, de facto aid and abet terrorism.” In this statement, you make two assertions: (1) Most Muslims do not publically decry acts of Islamic terrorism, and (2) People who do not publically decry acts of terrorism committed by others who follow their religion de facto aid and abet terrorism. Do you agree with either or both assertions? If you feel as though I’m “twisting” your words again, would you please clarify where I went wrong—clearly and concisely?

I actually laughed out loud when I read your last paragraph, I couldn’t help myself. Next time I see those guys, I’ll make sure to sit them down and tell them that everything they learned over two years of investigating bombings in Iraq was a wild delusion, perhaps imagined in a twenty four-month fugue state. I can relay their replies if you like, though I imagine the WSJ censor would stop me after the second or third word. By the way, some unsolicited advice: If you ever come across an Army NCO who was on an EOD or COIST team in Iraq—especially SF or Ranger—I would avoid attempting to educate them on the nature of their enemy. You will probably earn a few broken ribs in the process ;)

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

"I think most people would agree that it’s no small matter for one man to speak for law enforcement agencies “the world over”

He speaks for "most people" as he chastises you for speaking for subset of "most people" namely law enforcement types.

Oh, and I'm so glad that Zach somehow has determined that radical Islam is not a threat to America...even after bonbs are going off in our streets, and thousands have been killed in our cities...but I guess it begs the question...can there be any threat to America in the Ron Paulian mind of Mr. West. I have a suspicion that had Zach been living in the WW-II era, he would have been a Hitler sympathizer. Can't we all just get along?

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Jim,It might do well to reserve judgment until the dust settles. After all, we can't yank that guy out of the hospital and hang him right now, no matter how good it might make us feel. Better to give him due process and then hang him.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

James said.........."OK, now EverettIt is your turn, express it all correctly for the secular side."It's not that you got something wrong, it's that you did nothing further.----------------------------------------------I was taking it one step at a time, so here is the secular case. There is no supreme transcendental being that sets rules and controls the world at will. The moral rules that we have and use to guide our lives and set out what we expect from others have been derived from tribal culture that defined the rules for the group. It served humanity so well that the survival of various groups benefited to the extent that the moral part of the human nature co-evolved along with the basic traits that work for the survival of the individual. Thus humanity is conflicted because what is good for the group is not always good for an individual.

An important aspect of this theory is that the human nature comes pre-loaded with an innate willingness, or propensity, to believe in spirits and powers that act upon the world, but cannot be readily seen or detected. That part of our nature made it easy to direct a tribes rules and customs by assigning the authority of unseen, but powerful forces to unify and focus the minds in the tribe. Thus there developed a cohesion that gave power to the tribe over other tribes not so developed.

The crux of Zack's question, "Can we do without God?" Is one of organization. People have to have leadership else they are just a milling crowd. Up until the last few centuries religion battled with kings for authority. Finally the two power accommodated each other by asserting that kings and queens had the authority to rule because God have given them at birth the divine right to rule. Thus each new king in Europe would sojourn to kiss the Pope's .... ah, ah, oh yes, the Pope's ring. The two powers counterbalanced each other, which is a good thing to help keep rulers under some control at least.

So, the question is, can a nation develop the authority to lead the populace and can the populace find the leadership power to restrain the tendency for rulers to try for total control. Which they will do in the absence of a countervailing power, such as that supplied by God in the past?

Now the religious will reject this out of hand because in their view it isn't possible to just dismiss God and go our own way. I think that in a practical way, they might be right.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

" I think that in a practical way, they [the religious] might be right."

Ya think?!

Look at Obama, for example. Does anyone out there really believe that this man has the character, the inspiration, the hutzpah, and the intelligence to lead the greatest nation on the face of the earth and faithfully represent all of its citizens irrespective of race and political leanings?

I know that's a tall order, but even Ronald Reagan made mistakes, and Bill Clinton, well, we know his failure modes.

The point is that no human being can approach the ideal that we all have about how things OUGHT to be done. The only person capable of meeting such an ideal is God.

So what's wrong with believing in an Almighty who by His very definition, embodies perfection in all things, including justice, mercy, grace and love. He is the perfect example, and our striving to be like Him, provided that our definition of Him is accurate, definitely makes the world a better place.

We've seen enough of the efforts of the progressives here to try and elevate human beings to Godly levels..Obama, Hillary, Teddy...the list goes on and on, but when these people cheat, lie, steal, and provide themselves with benefits at the expense of the people they are elected to represent and govern, then we need a new model, where these folks are held to a higher standard and aren't put on some kind of statist Dear Leader pedestal.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Keith said....................Look at Obama, for example. Does anyone out there really believe that this man has the character, the inspiration, the hutzpah, and the intelligence to lead the greatest nation on the face of the earth and faithfully represent all of its citizens irrespective of race and political leanings?--------------------------------------Well, I'm sure there have been worse presidents, maybe Buchanan, but we survived it and we will likely plow along on momentum for awhile. The hope is that the Chinese won't get it all together for some time and maybe by then fate will favor us once again..

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

In my post to Zach on the next page I offer a concise definition of "Zachism." After thousands of posts and over 800 pages, it isn't difficult to spot his patented childish obfuscatory flourishes. He has elevated low-brow equivocation to an art form.

BTW, is Jim H. posting from inside a psychiatric asylum lately? :) My prayers go out to him and his loved ones.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

You are totally right. There is still a lot we need to learn from this guy. However, even John Kerry said earlier tonight on TV that the brothers became "radicalized," though at this time we lack details to explain where, how and why this happened. Tsarnev is certainly entitled to substantive and procedural due process of law as a naturalized American citizen. What is not in dispute is that radical Islamic religious influences played a crucial role in the terror bombings in Boston, as they have in every successful and aborted terrorist attack since 9/11.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

To me the greater conundrum is when two nations butt heads with different moral rule sets. Is there an objective way to determine who is right or is the age old saying true, that might equals right. Had the Axis won WWII, would they have been right? This question even has bearing within the nation as different demographics within the nation have their differences in moral values. Is the majority or prevailing moral opinion always the right one? If not, how do we decide?

See my post on page 794 where you asked me is secular society should split morality with religion 50/50. I think the two should find consensus where they can and cover each other's failings. Where reason doesn't work, try revelation and where there is lack of revelation, plug in reason.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Pretty much fits my own theory only with different words and narrative, but the latter mainly because I emphasize and descrbe differently different parts of the process. But structurally and process wise the same.

The only thing I would add is that it doesn't negate the existence of God. He can still be a part. It all is just a matter of how much He choses to intervene. That's why I "don't do God," why I believe that God is such a personal thing. To me the logic and scientific explanations work with or without Him.

Th crux of the whole thing is as you put it:

"The moral rules that we have and use to guide our lives and set out what we expect from others have been derived from tribal culture that defined the rules for the group. It served humanity so well that the survival of various groups benefited to the extent that the moral part of the human nature co-evolved along with the basic traits that work for the survival of the individual. Thus humanity is conflicted because what is good for the group is not always good for an individual."

A source of authority was required to implement and enforce the rules more or less actively but probably more so as the group grew in size. However you want to call it or him, that "ruler" functioned better that was seen as good, honest and unbiased, and so were born different gods or God. Again let me insist that I don't find this to be inconsistent with the possibility of there being an actual God. I find it perfectly consistent with the idea I kept hearing from my Catholic teachers that He helps those that help themselves.

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

"I think that in a practical way, they [the religious] might be right."

That is so because, as I said in the prior segment, they have the source of authority or leader that can be seen as more "good, honest and unbiased," and a few other adjectives, more steadily than anyone else over time.

Atheists will disagree but they will disagree with just about anybody that doesn't see anything their way, not just about God or religion. And here I might be seen as painting with a broad brush but I am only describing a characteristic, i.e. disagreeing, that is common to just about everybody, and in the case of atheists that comes down to God and religion.

That disagreement goes beyond religion. Take economics and the certainty with which Greg defends Krugman. Greg doesn't know enough economics to see and lay out the technical basis for what Krugman says, and be able to question him on the basis of his assumptions so he has to take what he says on faith. This has been obvious by Greg's failure to take me on on the assumptions on the two or three times that I've laid out some of them, with simple equations to show how they affect the reasoning.

And there have been other examples on other topics (e.g. drugs in Portugal) with other people (e.g. Zach) in this forum. Ultimately we need some source of authority that we can trust and therefore have faith on when having to decide about something ourselves, and that goes for secular matters just as much as for religious matters.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

No, no tricks, but I agree that you stated my position accurately otherwise. I do still owe you an analysis of the paper you offered and a solution to the public goods problem (I apologize for the delay; life gets busy). Would you do me a favor and email me that link if you have it on hand? It’s been buried under mounds of new posts, so I’d prefer to resort to a forum search only if you would have to do the same.

I don’t know much about the Monterrey family (but I have heard the name), so there’s another homework assignment for me. What other obstacles do you see in the way of private education besides the aforementioned issue with public goods?

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I wouldn't get too involved with the intricacies of public goods and the problem of the commons. What is important is what public goods signify in terms of incentives, and in this repect their important difference with the problem of the commons.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Btw, the only reason I mentioned the Monterrey family and their Monterrey Tech is that in expanding the Tech beyond their needs, and the expansion likely being very unprofitable, they tended to be an exception to the expected behavior of providers of public goods.

let me get back to you for you are now hitting on core issues that are tremendously important to the development of my model. I do recognize that in the direction of organized groups and community you can easily end up with many, if not all of the highly undesirable properties of "collectivism."

In the meantime, whatever you do please, oh pretty please, don't lump Doroteo Arango, otherwise known as Francisco, aka Pancho, Villa and Emiliano Zapata, with Porfirio Diaz and particularly Victoriano Huerta. The first two fought for the freedom of the individual and never had any ambitions of power, indeed they avoided it like the plague although both had the wherewithal to get it and even sat in the presidential chair, literally for just a few minutes to have their picture taken, but immediately after having lunch in the National Palace marched straight out of Mexico City with their two armies. They had come to Mexico City only to validate the constitutional government and democratic president they had fought for and finally attained by defeating the illegitimate dictatorship of Huerta, who controlled the federal armed forces.

The Mexican Revolution was pure and simple a movement to do away with dictatorship and replace it with a hopefully true and better functioning constitutional republic. The two battle cries of the Revolution were Tierra y Libertad, land and freedom, mainly by Zapata's army, and Sufragio Efectivo, No Reeleccion, effective suffrage and no reelection, mainly by Villa's army. Villa moved his army mainly by train and in film that still exists of trains with his troops, these are conspicuously emblazoned with banners reading Sufragio Efectivo, No Reeleccion. Zapata's troops in turn would carry banners that read Tierra y Libertad.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I certainly can't debate you on the minutia with regard to the Mexican revolution, as you will obviously trump my understanding, but maybe you can shed light on how, after the revolutionaries took charge and confiscated private property owned by various individuals for re-distribution for the masses, that these new governments attained any legitimacy with regard to their efforts?

In a free society, people must be free to work, buy and sell property, and accrue wealth in accordance with their gifts and drive. Anything else will by its nature lead to authoritarianism and economic decay due to the inherent erosion in innovative efforts when the government and not the individual(s) get to decide who earns and keeps private property. Of course, when I say "government," I mean the collection of individual souls who make the decisions. We can always tie the evil acts to the individual people, though they try to hide things.

We are seeing that now in our own President and Congress. They want to meet in secret, passing 1000-page "immigration" bills that no one can read and understand before they are written into law, and in most cases are wholesale transfers of wealth from taxpayers into special interest coffers (agri-business, public education, health services) that in turn fund the politicians re-election campaigns.

Our press is complicit in this activity, supporting the statists at every turn and not doing their job, which is to uncover the corruption and by shining the light of truth on it, to minimize or shut it down completely. We can only hope that our press corps will re-awaken someday and begin to function in a way that is crucial for the American democratic republic to survive.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Keith, "the revolutionaries [never] took charge and [never] confiscated private property owned by various individuals for re-distribution for the masses." All of the processes during the Revolution were done strictly by the book. Indeed, the only time Villa and Zpata entered Meico City, just for lunch, was to confirm a new constitutional president. The only one that didn't go by the constitution was Huerta.

The oil and land expropriations you may be referring to were done by President Lazaro Cardenas (1934-1940) well after the Revolution. In the case of oil, if you read the history of what happened, the oil companies brought it upon themselves. And as to land expropriation, the untold story, which in large part led to the failure of the Agrarian Reform, is that Cardenas didn't touch the most productive properties precisely because they were so productive.

Were there screw-ups, abuses and illegal actions, of course, but for the most part by the more corrupt officials. During the Revolution itself, it was Villa and Zapata that were themselves among the most vigilant that abuses were not committed.

You have to be careful what histories you read. In some of the early histories Zapata and particularly Villa were cast in a very bad light; I don't really know why except that the politicians in power probably needed to reduce their importance among the people (we sure know today why and how that is done, don't we :) ). I've read quite a few histories covering the whole political spectrum, including one written by a Soviet author about which all I can say is that it was really funny and it was all done by los Americanos!

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Actually the little history I know on this comes in reading a biography of Bill Buckley. His father owned much property in Mexico and it was all taken by the "replacements" to Huerta, backed up by (Surprise!) Woodrow Wilson, who ensured that the government was overthrown by aiding the revolutionaries, but doing nothing to protect the property of Americans in Mexico. After the revolution, as you know, foreign ownership of Mexican property was pretty much eliminated, and businessmen who had much invested lost nearly everything. We shouldn't ignore this stuff, although revolutionary politics and history is never a clean and simple affair.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Keith, I meant that there weren't any mass expropriations as a matter of policy. No doubt there was a lot of arbitrariness going on. I mean, come on, it is bad enough in normal times, imagine during a period of so much turmoil. And in the case of Bill Buckley's family it sounds like there were also politics originating in the US.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Zack said.............Tsarnaev recently told investigators that he and his brother detonated the bombs because they disagreed with U.S. intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq.----------------------------I don't know about religion, but the political aspect makes it a terrorist attack.

In this case its a set of elementary and high schools, and when the government and its cronies felt threatened, they shut the whole thing down.

Peter would like to focus on why it's okay to borrow more than a nation's GDP?

Maybe he should take a look at the inherent innefficiency in government run entities when compared with private efforts, private efforts that in this case paid off handsomely for parents and children, but which the Leviathan could not abide.

If the word gets out that private schools can run cheaper and better than government schools, will the Dems and the Unions be able to keep control of the government?

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Pete said.......................Nice to know someone is paying attention. Was getting tired of the "whose religion is worse" discussions ----------------------------------------So what do YOU want to discuss? I can watch talking heads on TV or the internet all day long, but I don't really care what they say. You are a person here with us so what do YOU want to say?

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Everett, glad you asked. I would like to discuss things that really matter to the majority of folks here and around the world. Stuff that really impacts people's lives. It doesn't matter what exactly. I'm not particularly interested if some guy did something stupid in the Middle Ages, or what the percentage of Muslims who are bad people are.

There are big moral issues out there like under what circumstances do we have a right to privacy. Should weapons of any caliber be available to any citizen, under any circumstances? Does the 2nd Amendment really say that? Can people in a community have a right to teach their children any thing they wish even if it means that they will not be able to qualify for a degree that will get him or her a good paying job? Can people in a democracy run roughshod over minorities with their vote? What if your group is in a minority and people who were previously minorities now turn the tables on you based on your previous behavior? This group has touched on subjects of this nature but then goes off in microscopic tangents while people are routinely disrespected and accused for their views.

Can we have discussions with differing points of view without the labels? Can we just disagree and learn from each other? I, for one, refuse to participate in any name-calling contests which is why I left this group in the first place. I temporarily came back because Jim O. decided to engage me in a civilized manner and we ended up agreeing on more things than before. But it didn't take long for the daggers to come out. Jim O. stayed cool with me, but others couldn't resist. Everett, if you wish to discuss matters of relevance I am all ears.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Well, Peter, I wouldn’t be too quick to dismiss the immediate relevance of a conversation about Islam. Radical Islam is indeed a threat to the Western world, but how we deal with that threat may very well define a generation. Reacting effectively and efficiently against specific threats has saved empires; overreacting and spending resources poorly has destroyed them.

Also, in this day and age, we’ve decided we Westerners will concern ourselves with things like human rights. It’s a shame, quite frankly, as I suspect launching a few hundred ICBMs at the Middle East, Pakistan, Chechnya, and any other hotbeds of radical Muslim activity would avert many future terrorist attacks (attempted and successful).

Seriously, though, this is my effort to understand how some Americans approach Islam and its followers. Even in the modern age, never underestimate the power that fear of the Other can have over people.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Zach, the discussion of the impact of radical Islam is important. What bothers me are exercises in finger-pointing and jumping to unwarranted conclusions with little basis in facts. There are nuanced and profound arguments to be made but in the emotional environment of the Boston marathon it is almost impossible to be analytic.

I have a direct connection to the Boston event. My wife's office is on the marathon route, and for some reason she decided not to go to her office that fateful day. Also, and way more creepy, I have a cousin who is a marathoner who was thinking of running the marathon this year for the first time. Her usual time is around 3:30. But she injured herself last year so she could not make the trip from South Africa this year. She had run the New York Marathon two years ago, and wanted to do Boston this year. Had she run this year, my wife and I would be greeting her near the finish line which is where the bombs went off. And we would have been in harm's way since it takes my cousin a half hour or so to recuperate in the runners tent.

So this stuff is very personal to me. But I refuse to engage in wild speculation about Muslims and their religion without any knowledge about how the bombings took place. Were they a product of an organized attack? Or were they just of a couple of losers who happen to be Muslim? I don't know, and I dare say none of us know until more facts are in. So exercising our prejudices is just that. I'm surprised the NRA hasn't issued a statement that if every spectator had a concealed weapon, the ordeal could have been stopped. Even they wisely avoided the subject.

I am not adverse to delving into the various cultures of violence and attempting to figure out what makes people violent, but I am sick and tired of all the name-calling. Not just here, but everywhere in our country. We are debasing democracy with these constant ad hominems and pigeon-holing people into groups where we all end up with collective characteristics that are not our own and then are forced to defend them. It is such a squandering of time and space.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

So your wife wasn't there and neither was your cousin, but this is all very personal to you? And with this very personal link, which is not so personal, you're going to take the high road and not engage in wild speculation about Muslims. You're a piece of work, Peter.

Tell you what, why don't you show us all the way and you stop calling people names. You will have to completely delete your website since that's pretty much all you do is call the right names, but wouldn't that be a start?

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

But it's worse. Peter starts with "I have a direct connection to the Boston event," which suggests that he has information we all don't. I find some of his posts rather bizarre.

Btw, by that standard I have an even more direct connection. Last year when I went back to MIT I had my picture taken next to a parked MIT squad car where two MIT policemen were drinking coffee, and we joked together a little. Indeed, I've shed tears reading this article,

“He wanted to get to know students — he wanted to understand us,” senior Michele Pratusevich said. “And he did it; he knew which students he was protecting every day when he came to work. By getting to know students, by talking to us, by sharing memories with us, by hiking with us, by dancing with us, by listening to music with us, he knew his community. He loved us, and we loved him.”

And the ceremonies yesterday took place just below my dorm room window, in the fields where I used to play soccer (more tears).

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Pete, you are a never ending diatribe about people that offend you or whatever. Hey, we all have to put up with that. It is so generalized there is nothing to say to your post. Pick on me if you must, but find something concrete that can be discussed. I know the world in general is a hard slog, but what do you want from the group? Sympathy for all the grief you endure from unnamed people? Okay, I'm sorry most people you encounter don't measure up to your standards and that is a heavy burden to carry around I know, but you must toughen up and grow a thicker skin. Else you spend all your time crying in your beer over how awful people are.